Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[GeeMack]

No, I'm still complaining about the way they hold witch trials and act like a religious cult rather than a scientific forum. It's not as though they only did the witch hunt thing to me or my ideas. Heretic burning seems to be a "rule" that is applied to all heretical beliefs at BAUT, not just my personal beliefs. One can't even discuss Alfven's papers there. What kind of weird BS is that? Alfven won a Nobel prize for his work in MHD theory, but evidently talking about his work is a crime against humanity that requires virtual execution, regardless of who defends his work.

You missed this part...

Well just be glad they also don't have that rule here where you're required to answer direct, pertinent questions about your crazy notions. If they had that, you would have been banned by now.

 

[Tubbythin]

Not in the least. I never suggested you could not 'falsify" an idea based on observation. I simply said you could not "verify" the existence of half a dozen assumed "properties" of DM based on uncontrolled observations of gamma rays in space. Totally different issues.

You've only just told us:

No, it is absolutely *NOT* an "experiment". They are simply *OBSERVING* events in space, and have *zero* in the way of "control mechanisms". No cause/effect relationships can be established that way.

This is exactly the same as for the dark flow observations you loved so much at the start of this thread.
That makes you a hypocrite.

That is not so. There is no "lab-based data" to demonstrate that DM emits gamma rays, or that it "clumps" or that it is "cold". The authors made these things up based on a theoretical particle from a *THEORETICAL* branch of particle physics. Worse yet, they added a whole bunch of new properties based on *NEW FORCES OF NATURE* no less.


Yes they do! They first came up with a number that would not show up in measurements derived from our current technologies. After they found an excess of positrons and electrons (something Alfven predicted by the way), they then fudged the numbers to come up with something that might 'fit" the observation. The math is completely "made up" to fit a specific observation. It's built upon more than a half dozen assumptions about the "properties" of DM.

1) It's non-baryonic
2) It's long lasting
3) It's cold
4) It's "clumpy"
5) It emits gamma rays when it "decays"
6) It emits more gamma rays when in the presence of a new form of energy that is unspecified in the article.
7) It's "slow"

Not one of these so called "properties" can actually be verified by controlled experimentation. All of them were created "ad hoc" based on an attempt to "make it fit" some "specific" observation, in this case an excess of positrons and electrons. Not a single one of these "assumptions" has ever been demonstrated. I am simply supposed to take the statements "on faith" and then allow them to point to the sky and add math to verify each and every one of these 7 assumed properties of DM. Give me a break. Suppose I made up a theory about invisible elves and assigned them 7 distinct "properties" I could not verify in any way, and then tried to explain solar events with them and I included math. Would you accept the notion that because my mathematical predictions of gamma rays from the sun happen to match observation, that these gamma rays from the sun now demonstrate the validity of the 7 assumed properties of elves, and elves exist, and elves release gamma rays on the sun?

This is a science forum not a kiddies story book. I'm quite happy to converse about science. But please grow up and talk about science, not elves and such like. I thought you were a fully grown man.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You've only just told us:


This is exactly the same as for the dark flow observations you loved so much at the start of this thread.
That makes you a hypocrite.

No, it's not the same thing. The *ONLY* claim to fame that inflation has is it's "prediction" of a "homogeneous" layout of matter. If the universe isn't homogeneously distributed, then your beloved inflation is DOA. Oh wait, I forgot, that deity is already dead and gone.

This is a science forum not a kiddies story book. I'm quite happy to converse about science.

So explain to me why do you believe in inflation and dark thingies?

But please grow up and talk about science, not elves and such like. I thought you were a fully grown man.

I'm 49 now. I'm a fully grown man with two kids, a wife and I own my own business.

I guess you just don't want to respond to my question eh?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You missed this part...

If you were required to back up your claims via empirical physical science, this thread would be closed now too. So what?

 

[Reality Check]

I see you are doing your usual "I shall ignore most of the post and display my inability to undestand what is being described" thing.

Nowhere in my post do I mention stars or galaxies (which act exactly as you state).
The entire post is about the majority of matter in the galactic clusters - the gas in the intergalactic medium.


A variation on my simple explanation:

1. A is a big blob of gas.
2. B is a bib bolb of gas.
3. Blob A hits blob A.
   • If the gas is all the same stuff then the result will be another blob of gas .
   • If the gas is a mixture of two kinds of gas , one of which interacts weakly with the other, then the result will be 3 blobs since the weakly interacting gas passes through the other gas .
4. We see 3 blobs.
5. Thus the gas is made of two kinds of gas, one of which interacts weakly with the other.

First asked 18 July 2009
Any problems with this analysis with what is going on with the IGM in the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222?

Just found out that there is a lesser known observation (but messier) that also shows the separation of dark and normal matter - Abell 520.

Any answer yet MM?
Alternatively: Why do we see 3 blobs of gas?

 

[Reality Check]

No, it's not the same thing. The *ONLY* claim to fame that inflation has is it's "prediction" of a "homogeneous" layout of matter. If the universe isn't homogeneously distributed, then your beloved inflation is DOA. Oh wait, I forgot, that deity is already dead and gone.

Wrong again MM.
The *CLAIMS TO FAME* of inflation are the successful predictions of

1. The universe is statistically homogeneous and isotropic.
2. The universe is flat.
3. Magnetic monopoles do not seem to exist (but this can be falsified by the detection of one!).
4. The structures visible in the universe today formed through the gravitational collapse of perturbations which were formed as quantum mechanical fluctuations in the inflationary epoch.
5. The spectral index.

I missed your citation of a paper showing that the universe is not "homogeneously distributed". What was it?

 

[Wangler]

Just found out that there is a lesser known observation (but messier) that also shows the separation of dark and normal matter - Abell 520.

Very interesting. This paper says that Abell 520 is a counterpoint to the bullet cluster; dark matter appears to behave differently in A520 than in the bullet:

snip:

"For Abell 520, using the mass for peak 3 and assuming an effective depth along the merging axis of 150 kpc, we estimate m  0.066±0.016 g/cm2, yielding a cross section of σdm/mdm  0.25/0.066  3.8±1.1 cm2 g−1, well above the upper limit of 1 cm2 g−1 derived for the bullet cluster."

The dark matter in this cluster appears to be more susceptible to "collisions" than in the bullet....

Maybe there's more than one kind of dark matter?

 

[Singularitarian]

Of course there is more than one kind of dark matter when concerning the many particles which are within its field family... but if there is another type of matter which shows different effects as you have demonstrated then it would be an entirely new field of particles, rather than a second kind of dark matter.

 

[Wangler]

Of course there is more than one kind of dark matter when concerning the many particles which are within its field family...

Someone who knows what dark matter is! Can you elaborate?

.. but if there is another type of matter which shows different effects as you have demonstrated then it would be an entirely new field of particles, rather than a second kind of dark matter.

If you are referring to my post, you give me much too much credit: I demonstrated nothing, but rather cut and pasted an excerpt from some experts' paper.

 

[Reality Check]

Very interesting. This paper says that Abell 520 is a counterpoint to the bullet cluster; dark matter appears to behave differently in A520 than in the bullet:

snip:

"For Abell 520, using the mass for peak 3 and assuming an effective depth along the merging axis of 150 kpc, we estimate m  0.066±0.016 g/cm2, yielding a cross section of σdm/mdm  0.25/0.066  3.8±1.1 cm2 g−1, well above the upper limit of 1 cm2 g−1 derived for the bullet cluster."

The dark matter in this cluster appears to be more susceptible to "collisions" than in the bullet....

Maybe there's more than one kind of dark matter?

Maybe.
But then the question is why the dark matter in the Bullet Culster is a different sort (or mixture of sorts) of dark matter than that in Abell 520.

There is a cavet in the next paragraph.
A Dark Core in Abell 520

The σdm value is an order-of-magnitude estimate, but any detailed corrections to the estimate must also be reflected in the upper limit derived for the bullet cluster. We caution that the measurement is sensitive to the surface density of the cluster along the merging direction, something that is uncertain in our current maps but will improve with planned higher resolution Hubble
Space Telescope observations. Differences in the merger impact parameter could be invoked to explain why Abell 520 and the bullet cluster yield different constraints on the cross-section; such a discussion is beyond the scope of this paper.

​

​

​

​

 

[Singularitarian]

Someone who knows what dark matter is! Can you elaborate? (1)



If you are referring to my post, you give me much too much credit: I demonstrated nothing, but rather cut and pasted an excerpt from some experts' paper.

1) By classifications in a family, i mean particles which contend as possible candidates for dark matter, such as the axion. But then we class them equally into two seperate parts of one family consisting of their speeds, into Hot (fast) DM and Cold (Slow) DM, but they consistently have non-baryonic properties that can be measured even though not observed directly. But if such gravitational differences are found in differential star clusters, then it show evidence of a new class of particle which is not part of Dark Matter. It could also be faulty or smudged observational work. It could also mean General Relativity does not work at large distances... in fact, it could mean a lot of things.

 

[Wangler]

Thanks, guys!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Just found out that there is a lesser known observation (but messier) that also shows the separation of dark and normal matter - Abell 520.

Any answer yet MM?
Alternatively: Why do we see 3 blobs of gas?

Well, let's see where the "missing mass" is located, in the gas, or in the solar system infrastructures that pass right through each other.....

In clusters with recent major merger activity, the positions of the dark matter and main baryonic component (the X-ray emitting gas) can become temporarily separated. This occurs because the gas is collisional and experiences ram pressure, whereas galaxies and (presumably) dark matter are effectively collisionless.

So essentially they confirmed that the "missing matter" is located inside the stars and solar system infrastructures of the galaxy. Big deal. I knew that much from the bullet cluster data. It is just additional evidence that your industry cannot correctly calculate the mass of galaxy with current guestimation techniques. Not one single line of that paper demonstrates that any of the missing mass is "non-baryonic" exotic matter.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Very interesting. This paper says that Abell 520 is a counterpoint to the bullet cluster; dark matter appears to behave differently in A520 than in the bullet:

snip:

"For Abell 520, using the mass for peak 3 and assuming an effective depth along the merging axis of 150 kpc, we estimate m  0.066±0.016 g/cm2, yielding a cross section of σdm/mdm  0.25/0.066  3.8±1.1 cm2 g−1, well above the upper limit of 1 cm2 g−1 derived for the bullet cluster."

The dark matter in this cluster appears to be more susceptible to "collisions" than in the bullet....

Maybe there's more than one kind of dark matter?

One can't help but wonder how much these images might have to do with the mass concentrations near the core of the galaxies and contained in solar systems vs. the gas between the stars which would appear to experience more collisions. The pink baryonic matter seems to be related to light gas between stars that collides as the galaxies collide and interact. The blue areas would seem to be the stars, core and physical solar system infrastructure that does not interact that much as the star fields pass through one another.

Whereas the bullet cluster data seemed to suggest that DM did *NOT* experience "collisions', this data seems to require some sort of collisions process to make it work right. Which is it? I don't think they can even come up with a consensus on whether or not DM collides with itself.

 

[Vermonter]

Unfortunately all threads that MM is involved in will become like this one.

He whines and complains about lab experiments and dead deities without offering any evidence, we ignore his prattling and soapboxing and ask him questions which he ignores. It's a trainwreck in slow motion and repeat.

Really now, MM. Dead inflation deities and invisible faeries? You're a troll. Unlike faeries, trolls exist. Arguing with you is pointless because you'll never admit you're wrong and you'll overlook every single time someone comes up with a counterpoint that refutes you. Go...play with Alex Jones or something. His goons are more to your liking.

If I wasted fifteen years of my life on something with not a single thing to show for it I'd be pretty humiliated. You can't even do any real work or experiments, you rip off other people's work. You point to pictures like they are the be-all-end-all of arguements. Do you use 8x10 glossies with paragraphs on the back of each one? Show us some actual work you have done. What experiments have you done? What tests have you performed? What background do you have that makes you qualified to run the equipment?

 

[Reality Check]

One can't help but wonder how much these images might have to do with the mass concentrations near the core of the galaxies and contained in solar systems vs. the gas between the stars which would appear to experience more collisions. The pink baryonic matter seems to be related to light gas between stars that collides as the galaxies collide and interact. The blue areas would seem to be the stars, core and physical solar system infrastructure that does not interact that much as the star fields pass through one another.

One would not wonder that if one knew any physics.
The pixels that are false colored pink are the X-rays from any gas (baryonic matter) that is colliding.
The blue areas are the matter in the galactic cluster whether visible or not.

Whereas the bullet cluster data seemed to suggest that DM did *NOT* experience "collisions', this data seems to require some sort of collisions process to make it work right. Which is it? I don't think they can even come up with a consensus on whether or not DM collides with itself.

Wrong.
Weakly Interacting Massive Particle

Dark matter

The most direct observational evidence to date for dark matter is in a system known as the Bullet Cluster. In most regions of the universe, dark matter and visible material are found together,[14] as expected because of their mutual gravitational attraction. In the Bullet Cluster, a collision between two galaxy clusters appears to have caused a separation of dark matter and baryonic matter. X-ray observations show that much of the baryonic matter (in the form of 107–108 Kelvin[15] gas, or plasma) in the system is concentrated in the center of the system. Electromagnetic interactions between passing gas particles caused them to slow down and settle near the point of impact. However, weak gravitational lensing observations of the same system show that much of the mass resides outside of the central region of baryonic gas. Because dark matter does not interact by electromagnetic forces, it would not have been slowed in the same way as the X-ray visible gas, so the dark matter components of the two clusters passed through each other without slowing down substantially. This accounts for the separation. Unlike the galactic rotation curves, this evidence for dark matter is independent of the details of Newtonian gravity, so it is held as direct evidence of the existence of dark matter.

Emphasis added.


And the question you are unable to answer (with more emphasis added)

1. A is a big blob of gas.
2. B is a bib bolb of gas.
3. Blob A hits blob A.
   • If the gas is all the same stuff then the result will be another blob of gas .
   • If the gas is a mixture of two kinds of gas , one of which interacts weakly with the other, then the result will be 3 blobs since the weakly interacting gas passes through the other gas .
4. We see 3 blobs.
5. Thus the gas is made of two kinds of gas, one of which interacts weakly with the other.

First asked 18 July 2009
Any problems with this analysis with what is going on with the IGM in the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222?

 

[Dancing David]

Mass hiding in the solar system! That is just great. So the mass of man made sattelites is not known, from that we can not find the mass of anything. The intra system gas is hiding, the interstellar gas is hiding, sure whatever.

Larger black holes, cool, but does that explain all parts of the flat rotation curves of galaxies?

BTW gentle people, there is a lot of bickering going on! Is this Politics?

 

[tusenfem]

FYI, you can't defend your cosmology position any better than anyone else. I've seen *NOTHING* even remotely resembling qualified 'evidence' to support any of your key beliefs. Inflation is dead and gone. It doesn't even exist in nature. You folks made it up, then you folks killed it off so that nobody can ever hope to falsify the idea. Dark energy was just stuffed into your theory all willy-nilly in a purely ad-hoc manner. In the process you reduced the rest of the physical universe to a bit player and real *physics* (the kind that does work in a lab) has been reduced to a mere 4% of your total theory. 96 percent of your theory is metaphysical gap filler. Now supposedly DE makes up 75% of the universe, but you can't make it do anything in a lab at all. Pure ad hoc gap filler. Now you're doing the same thing with DM. You're stuffing it with unqualified 'properties' just to make it fit into a math formula. None of this is actual "physics", it's pure metaphysics and faith.

I am not trying to defend ANY cosmology, as it is not my field of research. I am just pointing out all the errors that you make in plasma physics. You, the expert on Birkeland and Alfvén, the forefighter of the electic and plasma universe, don't have even knowledge of the basics of electrodynamics. THAT is what I am trying to do. You're not as bad as Sol88, but that is mainly because you NEVER give quantitative explanations, and avoid math (which is probably better).

If I could and did impose a 30 day limit here, you'd be toast. I'm personally into free speech of course, so I would never do that, but if you think you're doing any better than anyone else on any cosmology theory, think again. Your three metaphysical buddies are purely contrived and these make-believe fiends of yours are not qualified to be called "science" in any way. You folks simply make up this stuff as you go! None of this is based on actual "PHYSICS" or the physical things we have identified to exist in nature. It's 96% religion and only 4% actual physics.

I am doing plasma physics, not cosmology, I "attack" all your so-called explanations of what happens in the universe based on a solid knowledge of plasma physics, from the laboratory, space experiments and theory.

I am in favour of free speech, and I don't want to discuss the 30 day rule here actuall, but it does make that presenters have to come prepared with something and not make it up as they go, and that they cannot side shift the discussion to another topic when they don't like where the discussion is leading them (usually that they have to admid they are wrong or made a mistake).

 

[tusenfem]

Sorry, that's your gig not mine. You've got dead inflation deities, dark evil energies and a religious like faith in things you cannot even begin empirically demonstrate. I simply put my money on empirical physics.
[/quote)

Ahhhh empircal physics like:

• an impossible solid surface (or is it only a crust) of the sun
• current flows from the Sun to the heliopause that are never observed
• electrons accelerating in an electric field and "dragging along" the at least 1836 times heavier ions
• current generation in the sun by nuclear fission
• huge current channels intertwining and creating galaxies
• ... need I go on?

very empirical

No, I'm still complaining about the way they hold witch trials and act like a religious cult rather than a scientific forum. It's not as though they only did the witch hunt thing to me or my ideas. Heretic burning seems to be a "rule" that is applied to all heretical beliefs at BAUT, not just my personal beliefs. One can't even discuss Alfven's papers there. What kind of weird BS is that? Alfven won a Nobel prize for his work in MHD theory, but evidently talking about his work is a crime against humanity that requires virtual execution, regardless of who defends his work.

if you would have actually presented something that is plasmaphysically possible it would not have been a problem, but you have not got the foggiest about plasma physics. It all comes down to look at the pretty picture, and when asked to show that what you claim can actually occur (like the electrons dragging along the ions, apparently Birkeland calculated that, I went through the whole math on the appropriate pages, and found NOTHING of the kind).

It's okay if you can do neither physics nor math, observational astronomers are very important, but then you have not even be able to show that you understand astrophysical observations (like the thread "does Lockheed Martin understand the observations by SOHO" which was preposterous!)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

Do you use 8x10 glossies with paragraphs on the back of each one?

[...]

Not only does MM not use '8x10 glossies with paragraphs on the back of each one', he doesn't use "eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us" ... and he certainly doesn't use 27 of them!